vertical

Vertical and horizontal federalism
are important aspects of America's political structure.
Of the identified forms of federalism, vertical and
horizontal are considered to be the ones most commonly observed by
analysts.

The Constitution is an ambiguous document open to
interpretation by all. Some political analyst such as Bowles considers this to be its greatest asset as it has
survived a civil war, the abolition of slavery, migration and immigration
problems, the development of America into a superpower and involving herself in
world problems.

"It has a flexibility that has enabled
it to survive, by ensuring its legitimacy in a heterogeneous
society…………it has also ensured that agreement on the meaning of the provisions for relations between
branches of the Federal government, Federal and
State authorities, and for conflicts between competing rights of individuals
resist definitive
settlement." (Bowles)

Bowles argues that if the Founding Fathers had wanted
clarity within the Constitution they would not have created three separate
government bodies; the Executive, the Legislature and the
Judiciary. Nor would
they have created two separate layers of government in the national and state
set-up. Bowles claims that as the Constitution can mean all things to all people,
then it is acceptable to America and ends the possibility of potential political
conflict.

The Constitution has achieved three ends :

FederalismSeparation of powerJudicial review

These three achievements allow politicians to make
government effective but prevents them from being oppressive. Each of the three
bodies named above has a different source of power and therefore has different
characteristics. Therefore they should not trespass into territory that is the
domain of one of the other. However, the Judiciary as seen via the Supreme Court
can do this legitimately if it feels that action by the Executive and the
Congress is unconstitutional. The Constitution guarantees the rights of States
and individuals against government.

However, each body tends to work in
co-operation with the other two and between 1990 and 1993, the Supreme Court
only held three acts passed by the federal government to be unconstitutional. It
is rare that this co-operation breaks down as it would look very poor that the
most powerful people in the world’s leading superpower could not agree on
issues. The example it would set and the knock-on impact it would have on the
status of government would be dire.

Vertical Power:

The Constitution has granted to the Federal government
power over foreign policy, defence, monetary policy and the regulation of
commerce between the States. The rest of government is left, in theory, to the
States and to local government which derive their authority from the States.

Since the era of the New Deal when Roosevelt clashed with the Judiciary, the
Supreme Court has been less active in defending the rights of States. However,
their separate existence is guaranteed by the Constitution and they guard what
they perceive to be their rights with vigour. But the States cannot be
independent from the national government as they simply would not survive. They
are interdependent and interactive with the Federal government bound together by
complex financial and administrative patterns. The Constitution may separate the
two but day-to-day life effectively joins them together.

However, this separation is in theory as opposed to fact.
For government at any level to be effective all bodies involved must co-operate.
If there is no co-operation then government itself deteriorates and the branches
of government involved in this will loose legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Therefore bargaining and negotiation are commonplace.

The President lacks direct power over the
legislators.
Except in very rare and unusual circumstances, the President cannot dissolve
either House of Congress. The President is expected to present to
Congress
proposals for legislation they would favour. The President is required by law to
present to Congress the Federal government’s annual budget. Congress can
either pass or otherwise the President’s proposals and the President lacks
both the power and the constitutional means to compel Congress to respond
favourably. "Neither in law nor in practice is Congress the President’screature." (Bowles)

It has happened that Presidents have had executive power
at a time when Congress has a majority of politicians in it that are from the
other party. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, started his second term of office with
the Republican Party having a majority in both houses. Richard Nixon and Gerald
Ford (both Republicans) were President at the time of Democratic majorities in
Congress. The
President does not require the support of Congress to be
President though to be effective he would need it if only to maintain credibility with the
public.

The party system is much weaker in America than in Great
Britain. Party leaders have few sanctions over elected members at any level. The
Constitution has effectively separated the governing powers and the parties find
it very difficult to combine them in normal circumstances. Only in times of
crisis - such as in foreign policy - does the President have the opportunity to
politically manoeuvre.

The structure of government in America has been labeled
diffuse and fragmented as opposed to being concentrated. Conflict has occurred
historically (the Civil War, segregation in education etc.) but co-operation is
far more common.